About your Search

20120926
20121004
STATION
CSPAN 16
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16
journal" is next. ♪ host: this wednesday morning we would love to hear your take on foreign policy. specifically on what the governor -- former governor massachusetts, mitt romney, and president barack obama had said yesterday. specifically yesterday said -- specifically we want your general level confidence in each candidate on the area of foreign policy. here are the numbers to call. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. if you would like to take part in the program, there are different ways to do that. twitter.com/c-spanwj,an.o facebook.com or e-mail at journal@c-span.org. "the baltimore sun" encapsulate the speeches yesterday. they pointed out that president barack obama made an impassioned defense of the expression of freedom worldwide. mitt romney urged other nations to emulate the free economy and suggested that the obama leadership in the middle east has been inadequate and reactive. this is a short piece to start us off from the president at united nations yesterday, talking about the middle east. [video clip] >> i beli
. to deal with china, it is the fundamental problem of american foreign policy right now. the difficulty is chinese history is totally different. we have been secure through most of our history from other countries, the impact of foreign societies on us. the chinese state has always been surrounded by a multiplicity of states. the management of all barriers has been a principal necessity of chinese foreign policy. we have done it on a pragmatic basis. the chinese have learned to take a longer, strategic view because one cannot decide the outcome of any issue unless you look at it in a longer-term. but these societies have two different approaches. it is an ever evolving situation. china is now rising country. we have the status quo countries similar to germany and england and therefore the likelihood is something like that might occur again. remember, china is a country that is returning to what it believes it has always been, namely the center of asian affairs. but it is inevitable that the rise in china will impinge on the united states. there are a number of things we need to keep in
under control. your statement is not accurate. >> let me go back to the policy questions, foreign policy question about the situation recently with the north africa. american taxpayers billions of dollars -- it was a big issue when we saw the scenes will see in a moment in egypt and the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. a radical islamist group attacked the u.s. embassy and tore down the american flag. in the same day, in libya, an assault on the consulate resulted in the death of the american ambassador christopher stevens and three others. these images echo the worst -- the recall those moments in 1979 with the taking of american hostages at the embassy in iran. u.s. taxpayers as an enormous 1.6 billion doris to egypt, -- $1.6 billion to egypt, which is now run by a former member of the muslim brotherhood. should the u.s. give up foreign aid to these nations, mr. sadler? >> no. not now, we have a fledgling government being formed a. with egypt withholding funds, the editorial board agreed is time for us to stop the old on that aid. it is in our best interests to stay involved.
tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern. the last debate will have a theme of foreign policy. the carnegie endowment for international peace recently hosted a panel on the president's role in leading foreign policy talking about american influence, the changing international order, and more. among the panelists is a thomas friedman. this is about an hour and half. >> good evening. my name is david rothkopf and i will be the moderator for this carnegie endowment discussion about how the next american president should engage the world. this is a debate format it discussion. we have a terrific group here. on my right, we have john ikenberry from princeton. next to him as thomas friedman from "the new york times." then just a matter is from the carnegie endowment. then robert keeton from the brookings institute. -- jessica matthews and then robert kagan. i will open up with a quotation from one or two of the panelists and we will then have some interaction on the theme of the ". lanham alaskan questions about related issues. at the end of each one of these 20 or 25 minute sections i will look to you for
of decisions, whether it's milosevic or whatever, in the military and foreign policy area? >> well, they should look at our proposals and look at us as people and make up their own minds. when i was a young man, i volunteered for the army. i served my country in vietnam. my father was a senator who strongly opposed the vietnam war. i went to college in this great city, and most of my peers felt against the war as i did. but i went anyway because i knew if i didn't, somebody else in the small town of carthage, tennessee, would have to go in my place. i served for eight years in the house of representatives and i served on the intelligence committee, specialized in looking at arms control. i served for eight years in the united states senate and served on the armed services committee. for the last eight years i've served on the national security council, and when the conflict came up in bosnia, i saw a genocide in the heart of europe with the most violent war on the continent of europe since world war ii. look, that's where world war i started in the balkans. my uncle was a victim of poisonous ga
important foreign- policy debate between nixon and kennedy were islands off the main island of china. those of us on the panel, we thought there were possibly an oriental dance team. [laughter] >> you heard it here. >> let's take a look at another clip from 1988. >> governor, it kiddy were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penay for the killer? peacoat know, i do not. i think you know i oppose the death penalty during all of my life. i do not see any evidence it is a deterrent. i think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. we have done so in my own state, and one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in america and the lowest murder rates. we have work to do in this nation. we of work to do to fight a real war that the phony war. -- we have work to do to buy the real war thanot a phony war. we have much to do to step up the war. >> some say that these debates are not really debates, but joint press conferences. the answer was seen somewhat determining the outcome of the election, but what they u
an american foreign policy that leads toward a safer world. the american people see this debt, and they know it's got to come down. and if it won't come down, the economy's going to slow down, maybe go into a recession. they see this tremendous influx and swamping of cheap foreign imports in this country that has cost over 3 million jobs, given farmers the worst year in american history. and they know this debt must come down as well, because it's unfair to our children. the american people want this environment protected. they know that these toxic waste dumps should have been cleaned up a long time ago, and they know that people's lives and health are being risked, because we've had an administration that has been totally insensitive to the law and the demand for the protection of the environment. the american people want their children educated. they want to get our edge back in science, and they want a policy headed by the president that helps close this gap that's widening between the united states and europe and japan. the american people want to keep opening doors. they want those civ
the moderator from cbs. >> the most important foreign- policy debate between nixon and kennedy were islands off the main island of china. those of us on the panel, we thought there were possibly an oriental dance team. [laughter] >> you heard it here. >> let's take a look at another clip from 1988. >> governor, it kiddy were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer? peacoat know, i do not. i think you know i oppose the death penalty during all of my life. i do not see any evidence it is a deterrent. i think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. we have done so in my own state, and one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in america and the lowest murder rates. we have work to do in this nation. we of work to do to fight a real war that the phony war. -- we have work to do to buy the real war not a phony war. we have much to do to step up the war. >> some say that these debates are not really debates, but joint press conferences. the answer was seen somewhat determining the outcome o
back to work and stop giving money overseas to the middle east. it helps our foreign policy, it helps our economy, it helps our pay checks. [applause] another area, as i mentioned, you have all these people in between jobs. for every people that got a job last month, which is a good thing, nearly four people have stopped looking for a job. we are slipping behind. and what we see when we look at the faces, when we talk to the people, when we see the names, it is a person in their 30's, 40's, 50's, early 60's -- i'll get to the people in their 20's in a minute. it is a person that came out of school, got a career, got a good job, and then the factory left. then their job went away. now they don't have anything to replace it with. we need to help people who in the middle of their careers get the skills they need to get the job they want that gives them a career for the 21st century that gives them real economic security. that gives them a better job with better take-home pay so they can provide for their families. we need to clean up our education system. we need to make sure that we don
need a foreign policy based on human rights, not on the procurement of oil resources. we provide for a green a new deal that would directly create jobs. because it creates jobs in the green economy, it allows us to back off these wars for oil and save hundreds of billions of dollars on the bloated military. instead it puts that money into jobs, health care, and education -- the things we need at home to create national security. host: the biggest challenge is getting on the ballot in 50 states. tell us about some of the difficulties you and others have encountered while trying to run and getting on each state ballot? guest: yes, there has been -- i am just now seeing that. a little delay here. the system is designed to keep alternative voices out of the mix. studies show one out of every two voters is not going to vote. that is 90 million eligible voters who will not vote this election. that is twice as many as the number that will vote for barack obama and twice as many as the number that will vote for mitt romney. that means most people do not feel represented by either of thes
with something, and you get touched on some positions. how would you describe foreign policy? how should america face the world? >> we should be the shining begin on the hill. but our military interventions, are going in, and we are determining -- we are replacing one dictator with another dictator. foreign aid is money spent on dictators. it is not spent on people in other countries. it is spent on propping up other governments. we are funding the insurgents in syria, and one-quarter of the insurgents in syria are supposed to be al qaeda. did we not do this in afghanistan? did we not bankroll osama bin laden? what we ought to have learned is that these military interventions make enemies to the united states, people who are affected by this. these drones strikes, yes, we hit the targets, but we wipe out another quarter block. we kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians living in these countries that we are ostensibly there to help. we are just continuing to make more and more enemies. it is no surprise that the unrest in the middle east is occurring right now. i would get out of our embassi
. that needs to be made clear. we have an administration that has foreign policy that is in confusion. it is not clear to our allies. in 2009 we saw student , and no word from this administration. in 2011 the united states stepped forward with a sanction. i am happy european nations have stepped forward with a sanction, but we need to be clear with our ally, israel, and this is not their problem. it is not just a problem in that region. this is a problem for the world. it is estimated in three years the iranians are going to be able to reach the united states. this is our concern, and we have heard nothing from the sun ministration -- from this administration with regards to iran enriching. there is a lack of clarity. i want america to remain a stabilizing force in in the world. we need to have thought, but with lack of leadership, lack of clarification, when our allies do not know what we are doing common we have lost that. >> thank you. senator kerry. >> this is a confusing time after the arab spring. it is hard to find out what is going on in the middle east. they do not call it th
of the country's top oil producers are also located there as well. the added states foreign policy, toward the persian gulf, has focused on ensuring the free flow of oil from the gulf to global markets. and opposing the nomination of that area. traditionally, the soviet union, but in recent decades, iraq under saddam hussein. this has embroiled us and two wars. and lead to a significant military, a commitment of military assets in the area. the question arises regionwide is the united states extended such efforts and so much of its assets? when we are a number three oil producer in the world. and we import less than 20% of our crude imports from the gulf. these are the issues we will explore today. is the global energy marketplace changing? is the persian off oil and gas still important? is it likely to be in the future? where the dynamics in the immediate -- -- the impact on the area's ability to produce? or to export? we have with us tonight three very distinguished panelists. on my right, presently an adjunct professor at the school of business at georgetown university. for the previous
callers came up with several points. one of them spoke to foreign policy. you have touched a little bit on that. how would you describe your own at form policy approach? guest: we should not -- we should involve ourselves diplomatically, but that is really it. we should be the shining beacon on the hill. but our military interventions where we are going in and we are determining another foreign dictator -- we are replacing one foreign dictator with another? our foreign aid has not been helping other countries, but propping up other governments. we are finding insurgents in syria? and a quarter of those are supposed to be al qaeda? did we do this in afghanistan? pinki -- and didn't we do this in afghanistan? didn't we ultimately bankroll osama bin laden? we are making enemies of the united states. the strohm strikes, yes, we hit the target, but we white out another quarter block. -- we wipe out another quarter block. we are killing civilians in this country in that were ostensibly there to help. we're continually making more and more enemies. if is no surprise that the unrest in the midd
at on a case by case basis. that those two issues of the foreign policy of the united states, as well as were we believe the military needs to be hored up. --: the defense budget does that sound right? guest: that sounds about right. caller: hello? host: go ahead. guest: good morning. caller: i have a couple of comments. i was disturbed by this conversation. miss blakey a corporate head and she has to do her job. things like this -- narrow minded republicans. i think americans want something different. we want peace. i know that is her job. host: your question, sir? caller: what are they fighting for? they want to give the american people less things. it is not fair. we to build back america and create jobs here. the idea of having a psychological advantage is -- host: we will leave it there. guest: everything i've been talking about this morning goes to the issue of preserving peace and stability. in the world we live and, peace must be maintained through strength. that is something most people accept. there are a number of factors in our economy. defense and military spending has a major ef
decisions, especially those made of the domestic and foreign policies. in the united states and in europe, their voices are heard. they constitute 99% of the society. the human add ethical value are sacrificed in order to win growth and the willingness to listen to the demands of the people has become only to the time of election. the current world order is discriminatory and based on injustice. distinguished friends and colleagues, what should be done and what is the way of the current situation? there is no doubt that the world is in need of a new order and a fresh way of thinking. and although which man is recognized as god's supreme creation, enjoying material and spiritual equalities and possessing divine nature filled with in the -- in order tor survive, human dignity and believe in the universal happiness and perfection. three, an order which is after peace, security, and welfare for all walks of life around the globe. four, all that is founded upon trust and kindness, closer to each other, they must love people. five, a just and fair order in which everybody is equal before law an
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16